Linux-Advocacy Digest #755, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Perry Pip)
Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) ("Rob Hughes")
.NET software (Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Why use Linux? (Russell Wallace)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:32:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>scripts could be written fairly easily.
>
>I'll see if I can come up with something.
Please, don't trouble yourself on my account. It is not an immediate
concern by any means.
Plus, I'd prefer something with a GUI. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 18 Jul 2000 18:39:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:02 +1000,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> From http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~bergmann/history.html
>>
>> "BASIC (standing for Beginner's All Purpose Symbolic Instruction
>> Code)...the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to
>> learn on of the more powerful languages..."
>>
>> 'nuff said.
>
>And this stops it being useful.........how ?
>
Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
beginners how to program.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 18 Jul 2000 18:41:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:42:48 +0100,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 17 Jul 2000 19:38:08 -0500,
>>
>> Really?? According to this Microsoft promoted study:
>> http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html Win2K is only
>> 13 times more reliable that win98, with an average of 2893 hours of
>> use per crash. And this is in a strictly controlled environment, i.e.,
>> common desktop apps, with regular reboots. A more intersting test
>> would be continous use in a multiuser software development
>> environment, where the behavior of undebugged apps can't be predicted.
>
>The document said multiple customer sites, so your theory on "strictly
>controlled" is out the window.
>From the article verbatim:
"The type of environments in which the tool was deployed for this
study included academic and business environments as well as NSTL's
own laboratory"
That's controlled enough. Certainly not software development
environments, or any other rigorous environment.
>Regular reboots aren't mentioned either, so
>that's also crap.
Crap?? From the article verbatim:
"NSTL installed a tool that recorded the uptime for each desktop and the
occurrence of planned and unplanned shutdowns"
That's planned shutdowns, for desktop systems it's reasonable to
assume that's regular.
>They also used multiple versions of Win2K - Beta builds
>through to released builds so that's also likely to skew the results.
Recent beta's...in a non-rigorous environment.
>But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...
The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
that's your problem.
>>
>>
>> >W2K is as stable as any *nix you
>> >could name.
>>
>> Well 2893 hours =~ 4 months. I couldn't imagine IRIX, Solaris, and
>> even Linux crashing every four months. Even a properly configured
>> Linux machine will crash far less than once per year, in my
>> experience. And that inlcudes extensive application software
>> development use as well. Face it Dristan, W2K is still not as stable
>> as UNIX.
>>
>That's Win2K Professional by the way...
And what does Win2K server have that would make it more stable? It's
the same kernel....Same BSOD.
And why did you leave out the part about Microsoft's own indication
that they do not provide OS crash protection from certain types of
application bugs? As long as that the case, W2k is gonna crash in
software dev environments.
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:53:44 -0500
Logitech.
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Hxyc5.325966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have to say it but Microsoft makes the best versions of the BASIC
> programming language. And mice.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:13:46 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: .NET software (Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Craig Kelley wrote:
> I'm curious.
>
> What are your (Windows advocate) reactions to this whole .NET software
> leasing idea?
>
> According to Balmer, in the future you'll only be able to lease
> software over the internet from Microsoft -- thus, you'll have to pay
> every year (or month) for every piece of software you own, otherwise
> it will stop functioning.
This idea, like most Microsoft ideas, seems lifted from another
company, BizTone. I came across it two or three years ago,
and it got listed on the Malaysian stock exchange. Targetted
at businesses, it claimed to offer software and disk-space
leasing: you'd pay a fraction of a cent for each access to
your data, for each computation. Saves you buying the software
and the hardware, was the idea. To me it sounded like a
hare-brained sham. Just a minute... wow! It is still around:
http://www.biztone.com
Fools and their money *will* be parted.
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:58 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>
> "Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> > We have at work a Windows95 PC that has been running
> > without reboot since the sub-department was formed 5-6 months ago. It is a
> > meaningless statistic, since all the 486 does is act as a Netware print
> > server.
>
> I thought W95 was supposed to have a built-in 49 day drop-dead timer.
There's a patch for it. (And a version for Win 98 too.)
I've a 486 here I managed to get 49 days of uptime out of before it hit
the limit; since then I've installed the patch, going to see how much
uptime I can get now :)
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:13:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8kuqhk$7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>> >Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather
>than
>> >"deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
>> >program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
>> >the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
>> >library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
>>
>> Maybe if you aren't talking about a "derivative work" in the copyright
>> law sense, but instead about something in your own little world.
>>
>> A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
>> PREEXISTING work ...
>>
>> 17 USC 101, emphasis added.
>>
>> Also, under 17 USC 102(b) and a number of court decisions, copyright
>> does not protect functionality, but expression. It would be strange
>> indeed if functionality was what made something a derivative work.
It is strange, indeed, that copyright law applies to something which has
any functionality whatsoever. The "expression" of an idea in software,
some would argue, *is* the functionality. I personally don't have a
high regard for the concept of the non-literal aspects of software as
deserving of copyright protection, but that is the issue which you're
dealing with. But that opinion does seem to be shifting, as a strictly
literal interpretation of software copyright as "source code text" seems
more and more dubious the more detailed an examination gets.
>Oh THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU :-)
>
>Now, Max, would you let the argument die? You obviously didn't know
>what you were talking about.
You'll have to go back further than that, Roberto, perhaps you should
post the definition of "work". My argument is that the work (the
library, in your example) must by definition be pre-existing, or you
would not be able to write a program which "uses" it, regardless of the
order in which you write them.
Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
"intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
context and purpose.
I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
practically reflect nature and observations.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:18:13 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >because smarty, the copyright isn't under the name "Drestin" - sheesh...
Of course, "Drestin Black" == "Dressed in black". Now let me guess
under what name those famous copyrights might be.... Brown?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:16:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John S. Dyson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Please refer to arguments on another thread. There are indeed weasel
>words that allow the GPL to be more free by selective enforcement :-).
>Involved in this 'selective enforcement' is an implication that the
>GPL isn't free unless only selectively enforced. In essence, even
>GPL advocates can show that certain other advocates are terrible
>hypocrites by calling it free!!! :-).
>
>Oh well, it is as I had expected... :-).
>
>Call on me in the future for further help, great
>to have been of assistance!!!
If only you had been. No doubt the "arguments on another thread" are as
empty and meaningless as your contentions here.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:30:31 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Rob Hughes wrote, rooting for mice:
> Logitech.
In my (painful) experience, a trackball is much,
much easier on... what's it called again, that nerve?
The one that goes through the centre of your wrist.
At first, it's difficult to adapt to a track ball,
sure. But since I replace my mouse with a track
ball, I never have my arm lock up in pain. I admit
that a mouse is somehow easier to use, but it is
not worth the pain. How long have I been using
a track ball? More than a year now. No regrets.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:42:57 GMT
In article <8l279a$qvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> "Payed" is much more logical than "paid". Just try to *logically*
>> explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
>
>Simple. I speak and write English. There and two ways to do this. Right and
>wrong.
>The above argument to tense aside, if I'm not to abide by the rules of my
>native tongue why would not such sloppiness be expected not to spill over
>into whatever I do? Writing code included.
>
Interesting article on that subject - http://www.lsadc.org/web2/variation.html
By the way did you write the above paragraph on purpose?
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:50:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Hyman Rosen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Phillip Lord wrote:
>> Wealth is created by production is what you are saying. Yes.
>> But those with large amounts of capital get the benefits of this
>> production, not the people who are responsible for that
>> production. "To those who have, shall more be given".
>
>Why are the people who supply capital for an enterprise any less
>responsible for production than the people who bang the nails?
I think you answered your own question. Because all they did was supply
capital.
>Why is granting the temporary use of one's body more noble than
>granting the temporary use of one's money?
Because your body is real, and your money is an imaginary portion of the
public economy.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:56:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04
>> : [...]
>> :>Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
>> :>does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
>> :>call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
>> :>(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
>>
>> : <G> Intuitive means, I have it on good authority (my own), "familiar".
>>
>> Nah - It means easily guessed. Something that is intuative is
>> something that, even if you don't already have experience with it,
>> you can figure it out pretty easily because your first guess is
>> mostly correct.
>
>Except that "guessing" is a (AI) gamma class activity.
>
>As such, the really useful way to defined the word "intuitive", in the
>context of a discussion re: computer software user interfaces, is:
>
>"The interface leverages off of existing learning by conforming to
>previously learned patterns."
I don't know; it still sounds an awful lot like an over-complicated way
of saying 'familiar', to me.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 18 Jul 2000 20:02:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
>"intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
>form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
>context and purpose.
It's a little more than a definition that "might work", but is a
statement of what Congress intends should be protected by copyright --
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title
[Title 17 of the United States Code, the codification of the
Copyright Act of 1976, as amended], in original works of
authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now
known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device.
17 USC 101(a).
And for the United States, Congress gets to set up the protection
any way it wants, as long as it is not perpetual and (according to
the Supreme Court) protection only works with some originality.
If you'd like a little meaning for it, read the rest of Title 17, the
Congressional Reports accompanying its enactment, the court cases
interpreting it, and the various commentators on copyright law.
"Intellectual property" is a general term that includes copyrights,
patents, trade secrets, and trademarks which are valuable and can
be sold or licensed. Each type of intellectual property has its
own laws and rules, in most cases established in the United States
by Congress.
>I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
>best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
>practically reflect nature and observations.
There is no requirement that the copyright and patent protection that
Congress puts in place "reflect nature". It is helpful if the courts
can reasonably interpret Congress' intentions.
It would be far better if your ideas had support in the statutes and
the court decisions interpreting and applying them.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:56:17 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:14:34 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> >> KDE != Linux.
> >>
> >> KDE is not restricted to Linux.
> >
> >Just in case noone believes you... I've personally run KDE under Solaris
> >and am running Gnome (using sawfish as the wm) under Solaris now.
>
> There are also a few GTK apps I run under Solaris...
Heck, I run GNOME and KDE apps on my HPUX 11.0 workstation, and the
WindowMaker Window Manager.
See, I don't like CDE. Hey, it works fine, it just doesn't work the way
I want it to. :-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:11:31 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <8kuqhk$7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >writes:
> >> >Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather
> >than
> >> >"deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
> >> >program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
> >> >the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
> >> >library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
> >>
> >> Maybe if you aren't talking about a "derivative work" in the copyright
> >> law sense, but instead about something in your own little world.
> >>
> >> A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
> >> PREEXISTING work ...
> >>
> >> 17 USC 101, emphasis added.
> >>
> >> Also, under 17 USC 102(b) and a number of court decisions, copyright
> >> does not protect functionality, but expression. It would be strange
> >> indeed if functionality was what made something a derivative work.
>
> It is strange, indeed, that copyright law applies to something which has
> any functionality whatsoever. The "expression" of an idea in software,
> some would argue, *is* the functionality. I personally don't have a
> high regard for the concept of the non-literal aspects of software as
> deserving of copyright protection, but that is the issue which you're
> dealing with. But that opinion does seem to be shifting, as a strictly
> literal interpretation of software copyright as "source code text" seems
> more and more dubious the more detailed an examination gets.
>
> >Oh THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU :-)
> >
> >Now, Max, would you let the argument die? You obviously didn't know
> >what you were talking about.
>
> You'll have to go back further than that, Roberto, perhaps you should
> post the definition of "work". My argument is that the work (the
> library, in your example) must by definition be pre-existing, or you
> would not be able to write a program which "uses" it, regardless of the
> order in which you write them.
I know you said you had not followed the example I gave, but this is
silly.
I'll rephrase it for you here.
There is a library called libA, in the public domain. It's buggy.
There is a program called progB, proprietary, that links to libA.
progB doesn't quite work, because of the bugs in libA.
Someone reimplements libA in a binary compatible way, and without bugs,
calling it libC.
libC is under the GPL.
The author of libC (or anyone, really), links progB to libC. That's
trivial to do.
You have stated a dozen times to have read that example, and that progB
is a derived work of libC, thus forcing progB to comply with the libC
license requirements for derived works.
Now, there you have a program that links to a libC, which is not
preexistent.
Happy? Now, since the program can not be a derived work of something
that is not
preexistent, the program can not be a derived work of libC.
Since the program links to libC and is not a derived work of libC, the
rule
"a program is a derived work of the libraries which are linked to it" is
not
true.
Do you get it?
Can you explain in what way is progB derived from the preexistent work
libC,
when libC is not preexistent?
> Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
> "intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
> form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
> context and purpose.
And what is that supposed to mean?
> I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
> best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
> practically reflect nature and observations.
Oh, yeah, derived works of unexistant works are so natural and
observable.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
